Commentators writing about Bob Woodward's latest book on the Bush
White House, PLAN OF ATTACK, have noted President Bush's fascination
with body language. He actually talks to Woodward about reading the
body language of those around him. It's safe to assume, then, that he
thinks he can make the rest of us read messages that he deliberately
transmits by his own movements and manners. It's not only safe to
assume, but plain to see. What could be more transparent, more
insulting, than the physical "sell" that George W. Bush gives us when
he steps outdoors to speak to re****ters -- and cameras?
There it was again, after he and Vice President Cheney spoke with the
9/11 Commission the other day. There was the stride that's a shade too
brisk and bold, like that of a whistler in the dark. And then the
trick of starting to talk just a millisecond before the body comes to
rest at the microphones, as if to suggest a paratrooper hitting the
ground with gun blazing. This is body language that screams "I'm in
control" so loudly it makes you feel like listening from across the
street.
There was the rapid spiel to signify mental mastery, interrupted by
the shrugging, stammering ad-lib to signify informality. Indeed there
was a lot of shrugging and stammering, and a lot of palms-out
arm-lifting in a visual "What can I say? I mean, what can I say?"
There was also a good deal of silence while the President of the
United States shook his head and searched his mind for a way to get
from one platitude to the next. Afterward, the CBS newscaster took it
on himself to instruct the viewers of this scene that they had
observed a President who "appeared relaxed and confident." Maybe CBS
had received an advance text of Mr. Bush's body speech, but without
the text it looked like an imitation of an imitation of having nothing
to be ashamed of. It was all such a struggle for him, and on such a
puerile level: "There was a lot of interest in about -- uh -- about
how to better protect America --? (pause)." His body didn't give him
much help there, though it tried mightily.
The Presidential preoccupation with body language even came out
verbally during those few minutes in the Rose Garden. Why, asked a
re****ter, had the President and Vice President met the commissioners
jointly? Surely not to keep their stories straight? Mr. Bush couldn't
get through his rambling, would-be glib reply without saying, "I think
it was im****tant for them to see our body language as well, how we
work together ... ." All the while, he was giving his present audience
a sideshow of cor****al chatter: the boxer-like ****fting of weight in
graphic readiness for any challenge, the face that reacts to his own
words as to unexpected good news (" ... answered ALL their
questions!"), the sanctimonious spreading of the hand on the breast
while the brow forms ridges of care; and still those blankly staring
eyes that give the game away. Always watch the eyes.
There are people who are drawn to the aggressive dishonesty of the
seediest salesman likes moths to a flame. The same people will read
President George W. Bush the way he wants to be read, in spite of his
multi-layered falseness, while others will resent the insult to their
intelligence almost as much as the damage this man is doing to their
lives. And so we have the thrill of close-fought elections. There's no
accounting for taste, and there's no telling how many of America's
voters will choose to keep the White House occupied by a ham actor who
seems unsure whether he's really playing a sleazy politician or miming
a parody of one.
Please visit The Cassandra Notes (http://www.cassandranotes.org/).
Here's a sampling of current contents:
* The Mohammedan Candidate
Excerpt: It now seems that George W. Bush was the Mohammedan candidate
in the election of 2000. Not knowing that at the time, many of us
supposed that the strange outcome of the election, in which he won the
office while losing the ballot, would tend to inhibit his actions.
Instead, it may have inspired him with the belief that God had stepped
in to make him the most powerful man on earth.
http://www.cassandranotes.org/mohammedanc.htm
* Where Will All the Women Go?
Excerpt: War is essentially a male institution arising from men's
traditional ambitions, men's traditional sense of priorities, and the
tendency of men and boys to form large groups for the purpose of
projecting power, as opposed to the tendency of women and girls to
seek civilized relations through intimacy. An entire populace made
available for securing whatever military "readiness" men's future
ambitions may require: that's hardly a woman's vision. On the
contrary, the editorial statement of The New York Times encapsulates
the compromised feminist vision of our time in its combination of
egalitarian appeal and underlying masculine bias. Its subtext is the
aim of marginalizing women who are not amenable to the male principle.
http://www.cassandranotes.org/wherewatwg.htm
* Friends of Anne Frank
Excerpt: Passive bigots, being essentially normal people, don't relish
the persecution of the weak and innocent. But if they can be made to
see an aggrieved accuser in place of a persecutor, and if the proposed
victims are a tribe which they themselves consider altogether too
powerful, why, that's another matter.
http://www.cassandranotes.org/friendsofaf.htm
Best wishes, The Cassandra Notes
http://www.cassandranotes.org/
|
